Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media

[AC21091968]

I think the debate between freedom of press v.s. privacy laws has definitely re-surfaced. And it's going to be more rigorous and controversial if there are more court cases between the press and (mostly) public figures. There has already been multiple debates on press freedom in both House of Commons and House of Lords.

Had this been a local newspaper or small publishing website (in the UK) releasing Meghan's letter, it would have been very different. I don't think there would even be a court case, because it would make Meghan look terrible as the person who ruined the business of a relatively small news publication both financially and in terms of reputation.

But because the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday has the highest circulation in 2020 and previous public figures have taken legal actions against them, there is more possibility for Harry & Meghan to sue them. For a non-subscription publication, The Mail (excluding Mail+) itself has been doing quite well for the past couple of years (not just COVID-19 lockdown period) compared to other news publication (i.e. Guardian, Buzzfeed, Huffington Post or even Daily Mirror)

UK national newspaper ABCs: Mail on Sunday reports smallest circulation decline in 2020
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/most-...lation-figures

I'm still undecided on the court case looking through both sides.

[Hallo girl]

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

No. Thomas Markle does not get a pass. If there are calls for accountability Markle goes to the front of the line. He chose to escalate this mess by going to the media three years ago to get at Meghan and he used Archie as emotional blackmail in the press to try to force a conversation. Complaints about not seeing Archie were in earlier filings. The baby should have been left out of this PERIOD. Markle's willingness to weaponize an infant grandson - while apparently showing no interest in the five other adult grandchildren - is beyond the pale. This does not shoe a wayward man. No sympathy no as Markle currently tries to shop around a "documentary" about Meghan that he is involved.

I agree Thomas Markle has made mistakes, some of them public mistakes, probably mistakes that there will be no going back from. I just wonder about the chicken and the egg, did the mistakes come first or did he make the mistakes because of how he perceived he was being treated. The truth is none of us actually know, we all have our own opinions, and maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle. I just see a man that was getting on with his life in a quiet fashion, who was suddenly in the middle of a media fire storm and probably thought he could handle it but didn't. I watched a documentary and he was being door stepped by the press, followed everywhere he went, even followed in to the grocery store making notes of what he was buying.
He didn't do anything to deserve that.
I also wonder if some of these errors he made with the media was out of desperation.
He has lost contact with his daughter, never met his son in law and will probably never see his grandson. I think he has been punished enough without us all throwing in our opinions on a man we do not know.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by RJC

I don't particularly like the extended Markle family and the way they've tried to gain publicity and make money from this whole scenario. I don't think I'll ever understand though why Meghan wouldn't pick up the phone and speak directly to her father or need 'help' to write a letter to him. But I understand that's not the point of this legal action.

Unless T Markle was refusing to take her calls I agree...

[RandyDrx]

Originally Posted by Hallo girl

I agree Thomas Markle has made mistakes, some of them public mistakes, probably mistakes that there will be no going back from. I just wonder about the chicken and the egg, did the mistakes come first or did he make the mistakes because of how he perceived he was being treated. The truth is none of us actually know, we all have our own opinions, and maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle. I just see a man that was getting on with his life in a quiet fashion, who was suddenly in the middle of a media fire storm and probably thought he could handle it but didn't. I watched a documentary and he was being door stepped by the press, followed everywhere he went, even followed in to the grocery store making notes of what he was buying.
He didn't do anything to deserve that.
I also wonder if some of these errors he made with the media was out of desperation.
He has lost contact with his daughter, never met his son in law and will probably never see his grandson. I think he has been punished enough without us all throwing in our opinions on a man we do not know.

That really reminds me of Kate in 2007, when she had cameras shoved in front of her face. Do you remember which documentary that you watched?

[Alison H]

It's not what the case is about, but I think it must have been incredibly difficult for him. TV shows, sports clubs, etc, give up and coming stars training on how to deal with the media, and they've also got the whole organisation behind them. Individuals have got no-one. And it's very unusual for anyone to get married without meeting their partner's dad beforehand, unless there are serious constraints of time and money, or they're already estranged, which didn't apply in this case. I think he probably was desperate. He's handled things badly, but someone should have been advising him, and Harry and Meghan should have seen to that.

[Queen Claude]

I don't know exactly when it happened, but it was reported that someone was supposed to work with Thomas Markle but he refused the offer / did not allow access. We now know that Thomas and Harry never met, and in retrospect, it may have possibly helped things if it a face-to-face visit between Meghan, Harry and Thomas been arranged either before or shortly after the engagement. Perhaps if a rapport had been built, Thomas would have been more amenable to getting the "help" he was being offered. I will add this in, I do think that Thomas is set in his ways which would have required Harry and Meghan to do things on his terms, e.g., meet up in LA, Rosarito or somewhere in between.

My recollection, from the point when the story broke that Harry and Meghan were dating, Thomas was quietly living in Rosarito and when the engagement was announced he and Doria issued a joint statement, and in between Meghan posted a picture on Instagram of the three of them having Thanksgiving dinner together. All that to say is that while it is not hard for me to believe that Thomas was/is a challenging person to deal with, a considerable amount of time elapsed between when he came under scrutiny when the story broke that Meghan and Harry were dating (Fall 2016) to the point he went rogue and participated in the staged photos (Spring 2018), which when it got exposed shortly before the wedding (May 2018), set off a chain of events culminating in estrangement and a lawsuit.

[Denville]

Who was supposed to hlep him? Someone from BP? Someone hired by Harry or Meghan? Is there evidence that he refused the help?

[Curryong]

In the article below it states that the Telegraph's Royal Correspondent wrote through a source (presumably within KP) that Kensington Palace is 'continuing to help and support Mr Markle' in his experiences with the British media.

https://www.pedestrian.tv/news/kensi...thomas-markle/

Meghan and Harry's emails etc which have become public since the court battle, support the contention that they both kept on advising him to not speak to the media right up to the eve of the wedding, and the article above also states that the Sussex team at KP wrote to the tabloid editors asking that they leave Thomas alone.

And, after Jonny Dymond criticised KP....

.@BBCNews understands but is unable to confirm that @KensingtonRoyal, the office and residence of Prince Harry, did offer assistance to Thomas Markle in the months running up to #RoyalWedding2018

— Jonny Dymond (@JonnyDymond) May 17, 2018

[TLLK]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55888361

The Duke of Sussex has accepted an apology and "substantial damages" from the publishers of the Mail on Sunday and Mail Online over claims he "turned his back" on the Royal Marines.


Two articles alleged Prince Harry had not been in touch with the Marines after stepping down as a senior royal.


In a statement to the High Court, a lawyer for Harry called the allegation "baseless, false and defamatory".


He will donate the damages to the Invictus Games Foundation, she said.


Harry sued Associated Newspapers for libel over two "almost identical" articles published in the newspaper and online last October.


They claimed he had "not been in touch by phone, letter nor email since his last appearance as an honorary Marine" in March.


The prince's lawyer told the court that Harry had in fact made "repeated and concerted efforts" to support the Royal Marines and other parts of the armed services - even though he had been forced to step back from his ceremonial roles.

This article shares the amount that Prince Harry was awarded.


https://www.newsweek.com/prince-harr...-costs-1565800

The judge also said the prince's lawyers had asked the Mail on Sunday to pay "manifestly disproportionate" legal costs of £35,000 ($48,000).
Instead, Matthew Nicklin ordered the newspaper to pay just £2,500 costs in relation to the lawsuit.
The duke has himself been ordered to pay a portion of the tabloid's fees, though only in relation to the argument over what costs should be paid.
The Mail on Sunday also paid Prince Harry what his lawyer described as "substantial damages," which the duke donated to the Invictus Games Foundation.

[Curryong]

I'm sorry that Harry has been told to pay some of the court costs of a rag that libelled him and was forced to concede that they did so in a legal judgement. That is quite unjust IMO.

However, in spite of the grudging and negative article linked above, it's clear that the Mail on Sunday did traduce him (there's a surprise!) and had to pay substantial damages. That the Invictus Games Foundation will benefit from this judgement is the best news of all.

[MARG]

The only actual money mentioned was the two and a half thousand dollars toward legal fees. The "substantial" amount awarded to him has not been mentioned. Funny how all the bad headlines are about Harry and not the paper since the paper lost and had to pay up.

[LadyRaven]

Originally Posted by MARG

The only actual money mentioned was the two and a half thousand dollars toward legal fees. The "substantial" amount awarded to him has not been mentioned. Funny how all the bad headlines are about Harry and not the paper since the paper lost and had to pay up.

Something tells me if the amount was huge, Harrys spokesman official or unofficial would have mentioned the amount. It’s like when Disney states that tons of people paid for Mulan on Disney Plus but won’t tell you the number. Assume it’s bad is the normal PR assumption

[Curryong]

Well, had the proprietors of the Fail and The Fail on Sunday successfully defended their actions in court then no doubt they would have been trumpeting the amount they would have been forcing Harry to pay in costs and celebrating their 'victory' in their newspapers for days.

So whatever Harry won in compensation and whatever the sum, it's sure to be in the thousands of pounds, it's a win. And a win against tabloids that persist in publishing baseless lies about his wife and himself week after week, month in and month out for years now.

[LadyRaven]

Originally Posted by Curryong

Well, had the proprietors of the Fail and The Fail on Sunday successfully defended their actions in court then no doubt they would have been trumpeting the amount they would have been forcing Harry to pay in costs and celebrating their 'victory' in their newspapers for days.

So whatever Harry won in compensation and whatever the sum, it's sure to be in the thousands of pounds, it's a win. And a win against tabloids that persist in publishing baseless lies about his wife and himself week after week, month in and month out for years now.

Needs to be careful though. Fergie had won some court cases against the press but overall they still won the PR war.

[AC21091968]

And it would also depends on how loyal (or how far) would Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday readers take. In other words, would they read more articles or purchase more papers just to support the Mail? Or would readers of other Murdoch newspaper/media (The Telegraph, The Times, The Express, The Sun) start doing the same thing? I'm pointing this out because readers of the Murdoch publication are generally very loyal and defend them from critics (e.g. Kevin Rudd) as freedom of press and freedom of speech.

The Times, The Telegraph and The Spectator (not Murdoch owned) are subscription based and these three have been doing relatively well in 2020. The same could be said for The Mail (Daily and Sunday), even though it's not based on subscription (except for Mail+). As much as the critics and detractors wants to de-platform them, ultimately it's up to the members of the public to decide if they (individually) want to read them and financially contribute to these publication.

Don't get me wrong, I disliked the tabloids (The Mail, The Sun, The Mirror, The Express, Morning Star...), but I think suing them would do the opposite and work in their favour due to reverse psychology

[Curryong]

From what I've read, both online newspapers and those in print (subscription and otherwise) have done exceptionally well throughout the last twelve months because of Covid and more people at home with increased leisure.

That may well not continue on in the future, especially as print newspapers and magazines generally have been dying, circulation-wise, for the last couple of decades or more.

And I can't imagine tabloid readers paying to buy more newspapers, whether Murdoch papers or not, simply because the newspaper group that owns them lost a court case against the Sussexes. People might well read more online papers during a 'scandal' and help with the Clickbait by their comments but that would be it, IMO.

There was also a survey done by YouGov some years ago in which readers attitudes to newspapers was examined. It tuned out that just 11% of tabloid readers in Britain believed the stories these papers put out. They're regarded as a form of entertainment within Britain, nothing more.

[Alison H]

In my experience, most people stick to the same newspaper/newspapers. A lot of people do still have print copies delivered, and other people have subscriptions to online versions. I don't think people start or stop reading a newspaper over one story any more than they'd start shopping at a different supermarket because they didn't like one of its own brand products.

We get 24 hour news coverage these days. By the time my morning papers arrive (like a lot of people, I read a national newspaper of choice and the local newspaper for my area), I've long since heard any news they might contain. Sky News even does a late evening "press preview", where they tell you what the headlines of all the main newspapers the following day say. I read the newspapers for entertainment, as you say, not to learn anything I don't know already.

[RandyDrx]

Originally Posted by Curryong

Well, had the proprietors of the Fail and The Fail on Sunday successfully defended their actions in court then no doubt they would have been trumpeting the amount they would have been forcing Harry to pay in costs and celebrating their 'victory' in their newspapers for days.

So whatever Harry won in compensation and whatever the sum, it's sure to be in the thousands of pounds, it's a win. And a win against tabloids that persist in publishing baseless lies about his wife and himself week after week, month in and month out for years now.

I would consider it a pyrrhic victory, don't forget that he needs to pay the lawyer's fee which probably doesn't come cheap. Plus, he went against multiple tabloids that is owned by people who have money to burn, if this continues, he would need to downgrade from his big mansion to a more humble home.

[Hallo girl]

Could I ask the view of our posters on the amount awarded for legal costs, only £2500 against the claim for £35000. He won but it will still cost him, especially if the legal team are genuinely billing him for the original cost.

[amaryllus]

Yes. It’s definitely a Pyrrhic victory. In addition to lawyers fees he just does not have the funds to keep on taking on Tabloids and risking more losing or paltry “victories” given they will not absolutely not stop printing articles about the bread and butter A list couple. Not gonna happen.